I see a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I would like to correct them or answer any questions. Please be respectful and keep the posts on topic.

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain

1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?2. Does anybody go to hell?3. Are there many gods in many worlds or just one God in all of reality?4. What is grace?5. What is salvation? What are we being saved from?6. If a man marries a woman and has his marriage sealed for eternity and she dies, can he marry another woman and have that marriage sealed for eternity? If so, will he be married to both women in the after life? If so, can a woman do the same thing--have herself sealed for eternity to two different men and be married to both in the after life?7. Is it necessary to become flesh and blood human beings in order to progress in the after life? If so, how did the Holy Spirit become a god?8. Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three distinct gods, or are they one God? Or is only the Father God?9. Are Yahweh and Elohim the same God or are they different gods?10. Did God actually have physical sexual intercourse with Mary?11. Can people become goes through eternal progression?12. Does God have a God above him?13. What's the deal with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph Smith really translate that from an Egyptian papyri?

"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?2. Does anybody go to hell?3. Are there many gods in many worlds or just one God in all of reality?4. What is grace?5. What is salvation? What are we being saved from?6. If a man marries a woman and has his marriage sealed for eternity and she dies, can he marry another woman and have that marriage sealed for eternity? If so, will he be married to both women in the after life? If so, can a woman do the same thing--have herself sealed for eternity to two different men and be married to both in the after life?7. Is it necessary to become flesh and blood human beings in order to progress in the after life? If so, how did the Holy Spirit become a god?8. Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three distinct gods, or are they one God? Or is only the Father God?9. Are Yahweh and Elohim the same God or are they different gods?10. Did God actually have physical sexual intercourse with Mary?11. Can people become goes through eternal progression?12. Does God have a God above him?13. What's the deal with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph Smith really translate that from an Egyptian papyri?

Answers (official LDS doctrine may be found at www.lds.org):1. No, you do not have be married.2. Yes3. This question is poorly worded and seems to be multiple questions. However, LDS teachings are in accord with other Christian scriptures/teachings whereas a person may reach an exalted position whereas they are, as the scriptures teach, like God. However, there is no teaching that diminishes God the Father's position position in "all of reality". A simple metaphor might be to consider that while you may become a father over your own son you still remain a son to your father.4. Grace is simply defined by the LDS church as " - the help or strength given through the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the grace of God, everyone who has lived will be resurrected"our spirits will be reunited with our bodies, never again to be separated. Through His grace, the Lord also enables those who live His gospel to repent and be forgiven."reference also from the Book of Mormon: "Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. " (2 Nephi 2:8.)5. In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms "saved" and "salvation" have various meanings. As used in Romans 10:9-10, the words "saved" and "salvation" signify a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. Through this covenant relationship, followers of Christ are assured salvation from the eternal consequences of sin if they are obedient. "Salvation" and "saved" are also used in the scriptures in other contexts with several different meanings.6. Multiple sealing for a surviving/divorced spouse (male or female) cannot occur. A sealing must be removed if another sealing is desired.7. Our time here on earth is a necessary step in a progression. The Holy Spirit is not "a god", but rather is a personage of God.8. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are personages as it were. The LDS Church does not promote the Nicean trinity.9. It is unclear from their relative Hebrew translations. (note that Yahweh is not really used in LDS Doctrine)10. No11. I assume by "goes" you mean "gods", and according to the scriptures a person may become like God.12. I do not know.13. The "deal" is likely a much longer answer than i may offer here. Note that "translate" and "inspired by" are 2 different concepts. No one believes or teaches that Joseph Smith translated the BoA from any papyri which is currently available.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

The author of the OP solicited questions. I asked a simple question and clarified it for another poster. If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

The author of the OP solicited questions. I asked a simple question and clarified it for another poster. If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off.

I was agreeing with you, you freakin moron. What's wrong with you? Can't you read? I said you were "absolutely correct." One should expect some sort of evidence for their claims based upon peer-reviewed articles or studies.

Have you got some sort of a problem with ... ummm ... comprehension?

Subgenius said: "People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream."

You said: "Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists. You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

I said, "Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy."

You replied, "If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off."

Huh? You sound like an total idiot, a moron, a fool. Do you have some sort of problem with someone agreeing with you in requesting verifiable evidence?

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

Yet you would refuse peer-reviewed science that came "from" the church. Or rather, if the source is seemingly pro-church it must be bias, but if it is anti-church then that bias must surely be absent. Your assumption that the church would not provide any reputable information that is critical of itself is unfounded and prejudiced.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

On another note it is apparent that you misunderstand what sort of text the BoM is, much like critics of the Old Testament and the New Testament you would erroneously try to reap what has not been sown.Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as any good scientist will tell you - should you not be settled in your predisposition (as it seems).

But let us examine your requirement....credibility to you is the consensus of scientists...which as i said is a narrow view. You are confusing paradigms, which is a common fallacy among those with cursory understandings of either. Your assumption that the scriptures, including the BoM have not been peer-reviewed is inaccurate...but no one is promoting any notion that the BoM should be used in the field of cartography or chemistry - anymore than one would consult an optometry textbook for a broken arm or car repair.So, while i appreciate your curiosity I am unaware of any claim for the BoM being a text for the history of ancient america - i believe you have made an erroneous assumption and your pursuit is fantasy. That the scriptures are a history in the common sense"a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that the "ancient Americans" are a unitary population; and that the approximately 100 pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scriptures could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere is a rather naive assumption...and currently you are the only one making this assumption.

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?

I will expand on a few of these questions a bit more as a former Mormon.

Think of it this way, there is in a sense three levels within the Celestial Kingdom. There is the first which you reach through Baptism into the Mormon church, the second you reach by receiving your endowments when you become of age. The last, which is called exaltation, where one becomes "like God," is received through being "sealed for time and all eternity to your spouse."

2. Does anybody go to hell?

Mormon's don't necessarily think people "go to hell," though they think that people are "in hell," currently. Before the creation of the world, there was a spiritual pre-existence where Jesus and his brother Lucifer offered up two different plans.

Lucifer's plan was for everyone to be forced to be obedient, and then he would take the glory. Jesus' plan was for him to lead by example and give them a free choice to follow. , and then he would give the Father the glory. A third of the spirit children chose to side with Lucifer and as a punishment were sent to hell with him and now act basically as the demons.

Everyone else goes to one of the kingdoms, either the Celestial, Terrestrial or Telestial. Except for people who reject the "truth of the restored gospel having a full knowledge of it," pretty much apostates like me, who would go to "Outer Darkness."

3. Are there many gods in many worlds or just one God in all of reality?

No Mormon leaders have really spoken with any clarity as to this point. There are many "gods" and likely many realities, but a Mormon could only speculate as in recent years they have distanced themselves a little bit from this doctrine.

4. What is grace?

The answer already given was sufficient enough I think.

It heavily involves resurrection in the Mormon's mind, and it's kind of about how Jesus makes up the difference in addition to it helping you be good.

5. What is salvation? What are we being saved from?

Nothing to really add here.

6. If a man marries a woman and has his marriage sealed for eternity and she dies, can he marry another woman and have that marriage sealed for eternity? If so, will he be married to both women in the after life? If so, can a woman do the same thing--have herself sealed for eternity to two different men and be married to both in the after life?

The man can, but the woman can't.

7. Is it necessary to become flesh and blood human beings in order to progress in the after life? If so, how did the Holy Spirit become a god?

The Holy Ghost (they use the KJV only), didn't follow the progression like the Father, it is not really specified where he came from in Mormon doctrine, or I may simply be ignorant to that.

Interesting question though!

8. Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three distinct gods, or are they one God? Or is only the Father God?

Some of what Joseph Smith wrote sounds quite different.

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. D&C 20:28

Sounds awfully Trinitarian to me. Yet, they say that they are, "one in purpose," and not of the same essence but indeed separate personages.

As he contradicts what he said in D&C 20 in this passage.

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

Henotheism really represents their doctrine well. Though they accept that there are many gods, for them there is only one God that they worship, the Father.

9. Are Yahweh and Elohim the same God or are they different gods?

I often hear that Jehovah/Yahweh is Jesus and that Elohim is the Father. Don't know if there is an official stance on that though.

10. Did God actually have physical sexual intercourse with Mary?

Well, what did Brigham Young the second prophets say about it?

"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218).

Or from Bruce R. McConkie, author of "Mormon Doctrine."

"There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).

The emphasis here is of course on the nature of the birth and conception being entirely a natural process, rather than a supernatural one done by the Father (who is flesh and blood in Mormon doctrine). I actually asked my Mother, who is a Mormon Seminary Teacher and she embraced the natural conception of Jesus.

You will find disagreement though, and beyond what these men wrote on the subject there is no official stance as older prophets can have their teachings superseded by current ones.

11. Can people become goes through eternal progression?

That is the part of the Celestial Kingdom that is called "Exaltation," where they get a world/universe/reality (who knows) where they have their own spirit children to then go through the progression all over again.

12. Does God have a God above him?

Likely, as Joesph Smith says that God was once a man.

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).

What many will say is that he was likely a "Christ" in his world, where he was a sinless Savior and not like a normal man.

Or some take the "I don't know route," as what Joesph Smith taught on the matter doesn't appear to be official doctrine.

13. What's the deal with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph Smith really translate that from an Egyptian papyri?

Subgenius said, "The "deal" is likely a much longer answer than i may offer here. Note that "translate" and "inspired by" are 2 different concepts. No one believes or teaches that Joseph Smith translated the BoA from any papyri which is currently available."

This is utterly false, as Joesph Smith bought this papyrus and mummy from an exhibit and then claimed to translate it. In the book, the "History of the Church, vol. 2," Joesph Smith did the following.

"The remainder of the month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

On another note it is apparent that you misunderstand what sort of text the BoM is, much like critics of the Old Testament and the New Testament you would erroneously try to reap what has not been sown.Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as any good scientist will tell you - should you not be settled in your predisposition (as it seems).

Science comes up with theories, and theories are formed from observations made about the current or past state of things. Archaeology is absolutely reliant on evidence, and while we have loads of evidence for the people of American coming from Asia (DNA evidence, cultural, fossil dating, geographical) we don't have any evidence that it was a Jewish culture that spoke reformed egyptian who broke into two large warring tribes and believed in Jesus.

By your standard, anything is believeable as no evidence is required to justify it.

But let us examine your requirement....credibility to you is the consensus of scientists...which as i said is a narrow view. You are confusing paradigms, which is a common fallacy among those with cursory understandings of either. Your assumption that the scriptures, including the BoM have not been peer-reviewed is inaccurate...but no one is promoting any notion that the BoM should be used in the field of cartography or chemistry - anymore than one would consult an optometry textbook for a broken arm or car repair.

Do you have links to scholarly examinations of the BoM? The BoM is supposed to be a historical record, events that actually happened, correct? Then there should be evidence to support it's case, yet there is none.

We can't prove a negative, but there is no support for one to actually accept these things unless they pray about the BoM and the burning of the bosom actually "proves" it is true. That's how it works, sorry.

So, while i appreciate your curiosity I am unaware of any claim for the BoM being a text for the history of ancient america - i believe you have made an erroneous assumption and your pursuit is fantasy. That the scriptures are a history in the common sense"a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that the "ancient Americans" are a unitary population; and that the approximately 100 pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scriptures could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere is a rather naive assumption...and currently you are the only one making this assumption.

You have basically just moved the goal posts. He isn't saying that it is a "complete history of the Western Hemisphere." Rather, we are asking for evidence that supports the historical claims that the BoM does actually make.

Such as evidence of Native Americans descending partially from the ancient Jews, cultural or lingual evidence, archaeological evidence of battles that took place, technology that was employed and animals spoken of.

The BoM makes many historical claims, and you are simply hiding the fact that you are unable to verify anything with something that could actually be regarded as solid evidence.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

On another note it is apparent that you misunderstand what sort of text the BoM is, much like critics of the Old Testament and the New Testament you would erroneously try to reap what has not been sown.Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as any good scientist will tell you - should you not be settled in your predisposition (as it seems).

Science comes up with theories, and theories are formed from observations made about the current or past state of things. Archaeology is absolutely reliant on evidence, and while we have loads of evidence for the people of American coming from Asia (DNA evidence, cultural, fossil dating, geographical) we don't have any evidence that it was a Jewish culture that spoke reformed egyptian who broke into two large warring tribes and believed in Jesus.

By your standard, anything is believeable as no evidence is required to justify it.

I am not sure how you are getting this conclusion, or how it is that you expect the DNA record of a few Jewish people to be readily found today....oh wait a second, science is whispering something in my ear:"Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome."http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

But let us examine your requirement....credibility to you is the consensus of scientists...which as i said is a narrow view. You are confusing paradigms, which is a common fallacy among those with cursory understandings of either. Your assumption that the scriptures, including the BoM have not been peer-reviewed is inaccurate...but no one is promoting any notion that the BoM should be used in the field of cartography or chemistry - anymore than one would consult an optometry textbook for a broken arm or car repair.

Do you have links to scholarly examinations of the BoM? The BoM is supposed to be a historical record, events that actually happened, correct? Then there should be evidence to support it's case, yet there is none.

I am unaware of the LDS church teaching or doctrine that claims the BoM is a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.

We can't prove a negative, but there is no support for one to actually accept these things unless they pray about the BoM and the burning of the bosom actually "proves" it is true. That's how it works, sorry.

First, every professional logician would disagree with you about proving a negative. For example the law of non-contradiction is an actual proven law of logic, and...wait for it...it is a negative. It says you cannot have a proposition that is both true and not true, and this is proven because it can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference.....so....awkward, but this is actually how it does work.

Second, the "burning in the bosom" for the prayer on the BoM is not for if it is true but for if it is "not true"...(https://www.lds.org...)I recommend you become familiar with a subject before you set out to offer an opinion of or criticize it...otherwise you lack a certain credibility and sincerity....(you may also want to check out James 1:5).

So, while i appreciate your curiosity I am unaware of any claim for the BoM being a text for the history of ancient america - i believe you have made an erroneous assumption and your pursuit is fantasy. That the scriptures are a history in the common sense"a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that the "ancient Americans" are a unitary population; and that the approximately 100 pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scriptures could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere is a rather naive assumption...and currently you are the only one making this assumption.

You have basically just moved the goal posts. He isn't saying that it is a "complete history of the Western Hemisphere." Rather, we are asking for evidence that supports the historical claims that the BoM does actually make.

Again, I am unaware of the LDS church teaching or doctrine that claims the BoM is a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.

Such as evidence of Native Americans descending partially from the ancient Jews, cultural or lingual evidence, archaeological evidence of battles that took place, technology that was employed and animals spoken of.

your predisposition would obviously dismiss any evidence presented to you here and now. Perhaps you should baby step your way through this? You know a sort of milk before meat...or if you prefer you could ponder the pearls before swine notion.

The BoM makes many historical claims, and you are simply hiding the fact that you are unable to verify anything with something that could actually be regarded as solid evidence.

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?

I will expand on a few of these questions a bit more as a former Mormon.

(snip)

almost the entirety of your responses are not LDS Church Doctrine nor representative of any officially published church teaching or position. Your responses call into question your claim of being a "former Mormon".

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

On another note it is apparent that you misunderstand what sort of text the BoM is, much like critics of the Old Testament and the New Testament you would erroneously try to reap what has not been sown.Nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as any good scientist will tell you - should you not be settled in your predisposition (as it seems).

Science comes up with theories, and theories are formed from observations made about the current or past state of things. Archaeology is absolutely reliant on evidence, and while we have loads of evidence for the people of American coming from Asia (DNA evidence, cultural, fossil dating, geographical) we don't have any evidence that it was a Jewish culture that spoke reformed egyptian who broke into two large warring tribes and believed in Jesus.

By your standard, anything is believeable as no evidence is required to justify it.

I am not sure how you are getting this conclusion, or how it is that you expect the DNA record of a few Jewish people to be readily found today....oh wait a second, science is whispering something in my ear:"Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome."http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Thanks for providing this link, it's a pretty new discovery so I hope you'll forgive my ignorance as to it's contents. However, let's see if it actually supports the claims that the BoM makes.

"Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say."

This isn't a direct tie from the Jews, but simply from west eurasians and from an existing genome dating back tens of thousands of years ago. If you read the article, nothing about the new scientific findings validates that there were Jews who sailed on a ship around 600 B.C. and then mingled with the existing inhabitants.

So I reassert my claim that we have no evidence of Native Americans being descendants of ancient Jews.

But let us examine your requirement....credibility to you is the consensus of scientists...which as i said is a narrow view. You are confusing paradigms, which is a common fallacy among those with cursory understandings of either. Your assumption that the scriptures, including the BoM have not been peer-reviewed is inaccurate...but no one is promoting any notion that the BoM should be used in the field of cartography or chemistry - anymore than one would consult an optometry textbook for a broken arm or car repair.

Do you have links to scholarly examinations of the BoM? The BoM is supposed to be a historical record, events that actually happened, correct? Then there should be evidence to support it's case, yet there is none.

I am unaware of the LDS church teaching or doctrine that claims the BoM is a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.

We can't prove a negative, but there is no support for one to actually accept these things unless they pray about the BoM and the burning of the bosom actually "proves" it is true. That's how it works, sorry.

First, every professional logician would disagree with you about proving a negative. For example the law of non-contradiction is an actual proven law of logic, and...wait for it...it is a negative. It says you cannot have a proposition that is both true and not true, and this is proven because it can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference.....so....awkward, but this is actually how it does work.

I'm not a professional logician, but I know a thing or two about history. My point was that in history it is difficult for us to say, "this didn't happen," and it isn't simple logic that helps with that. We can only speak to what more likely happened given the evidence we have, history is not an exact science that can be broken down into a little formula.

At any rate, this little rant serves no more purpose than to be a red herring.

Second, the "burning in the bosom" for the prayer on the BoM is not for if it is true but for if it is "not true"...(https://www.lds.org...)I recommend you become familiar with a subject before you set out to offer an opinion of or criticize it...otherwise you lack a certain credibility and sincerity....(you may also want to check out James 1:5).

It's been a bit since I have read Moroni, but your "nitpickiness" on such a minor detail is of no consequence really. It is rather just an ad hominem against me to try and demonstrate that I don't know what I am talking about.

Read James 1:5, and I prayed the same prayer at one point that Joesph Smith did. I however, didn't see the heavens open up and see the Father and the Son standing before me flesh and bone.

Hm....

So, while i appreciate your curiosity I am unaware of any claim for the BoM being a text for the history of ancient america - i believe you have made an erroneous assumption and your pursuit is fantasy. That the scriptures are a history in the common sense"a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that the "ancient Americans" are a unitary population; and that the approximately 100 pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scriptures could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere is a rather naive assumption...and currently you are the only one making this assumption.

You have basically just moved the goal posts. He isn't saying that it is a "complete history of the Western Hemisphere." Rather, we are asking for evidence that supports the historical claims that the BoM does actually make.

Again, I am unaware of the LDS church teaching or doctrine that claims the BoM is a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.

Does the BoM make historical claims? Does it make claims about events that happened in the past? Yes or no?

I am not saying, "it is a guide to history and all these other things." I am saying that at the very least there are claims made by this book that should demand evidence for validation.

Such as evidence of Native Americans descending partially from the ancient Jews, cultural or lingual evidence, archaeological evidence of battles that took place, technology that was employed and animals spoken of.

your predisposition would obviously dismiss any evidence presented to you here and now. Perhaps you should baby step your way through this? You know a sort of milk before meat...or if you prefer you could ponder the pearls before swine notion.

1) You know almost nothing about me, so how can you suppose to understand my predispositions?2) Your condescension is extremely rude as I am very well acquainted with the variety of teachings derived from the Latter-Day Saints movement.

Nothing but dodging here...

The BoM makes many historical claims, and you are simply hiding the fact that you are unable to verify anything with something that could actually be regarded as sol

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?

I will expand on a few of these questions a bit more as a former Mormon.

(snip)

almost the entirety of your responses are not LDS Church Doctrine nor representative of any officially published church teaching or position. Your responses call into question your claim of being a "former Mormon".

More ad hominem from you I see, questioning my honesty on the matter....

I was born and raised Mormon up until I was 19 years old and then studied it there which led me to leave. Baptized at 8 years old, became president of the Deacons and Teachers Quorum (if I remember right the Bishop is the head of the Priests Quorum so you can't be president of that). Was a part of Lacey 4th Ward of the Lacey Stake in Washington State. My family was very active growing up, my Father being a High Priest and my mother a Seminary Teacher (I myself went through 4 years of Seminary).

When I kept getting asked if I should go on a mission, I decided to study the claims Mormonism made before I went around telling people if it was true or not. I came to the conclusion that it was not.

Let's also notice that you failed to recognize that I even pointed out the areas where there seemed to be no official teaching on the matter. So I agree with your claim in a sense!

"No Mormon leaders have really spoken with any clarity as to this point.""It is not really specified where he came from in Mormon doctrine, or I may simply be ignorant to that.""Don't know if there is an official stance on that though.""You will find disagreement though, and beyond what these men wrote on the subject there is no official stance as older prophets can have their teachings superseded by current ones.""as what Joesph Smith taught on the matter doesn't appear to be official doctrine."

I was very honest about my response, and tried to give a more honest perspective rather than the "official church position," which usually tremendously under represents their actual beliefs by only truly establishing what is "milk," then later they will talk about the "meat."

Let's also notice how in your objection to my answers you have provided NO rebuttals, but rather an attack on my honesty.

I provided quotes from the founders of the LDS church, authorities who wrote on doctrine and direct evidence that contradicts what you said regarding the Book of Abraham.

This is something that I struggle with Mormons to do... talk on point please!!! Don't dodge!!!!

Wow, lol I was planning on checking back in a couple days and it looks like more people posted on here than I thought. I will get to those requests then. Give me a couple hours to type them up and give sources. Though it looks like a few of you having been doing good in my absence. Sorry about that :)

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain

1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?You have to be sealed to your spouse to enter the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom though those sealings can happen in this life or in the millennium.https://www.lds.org...9 paragraphs down is where it talks about this.

2. Does anybody go to hell?In our church Hell can refer to two places. The first being the temporary residence of those who were disobedient or unrighteous in this life. In this the people there and be taught the gospel and be given a chance to repent and be placed in one of the degrees of glory. If they choose not to repent they well remain there until the end of millennium and be placed in the Telestial Kingdom.The second place will refer to Hell as in, well, Hell. This is permanent. Lucifer, his angels, and the sons of perdition reside here. For more information and scriptural references see link below.https://www.lds.org...

3. Are there many gods in many worlds or just one God in all of reality?I have to agree with the poster above. Some scripture seems to indicate that their may have been a god before god but it is purely speculation. However, we do believe that we can become like our father in heaven through the plan of redemption (salvation, happiness, the plan has been referred to by different names in case you are confused).https://www.lds.org...The above link explains that idea.On a side note, we do believe that the three members of the godhead are all gods, so I suppose you could say there are currently multiple gods.https://www.lds.org...

4. What is grace?Grace is what was given to us through Jesus Christ atonement. Because of this we can repent, be resurrected and return to our Father in Heaven.To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives (see Ephesians 2:8-9; James 2:17-22; 2 Nephi 25:23; 31:20).https://www.lds.org...

5. What is salvation? What are we being saved from?https://www.lds.org...This explains it better than I ever could. It explains what salvation is and the things we are being saved from.

6. If a man marries a woman and has his marriage sealed for eternity and she dies, can he marry another woman and have that marriage sealed for eternity? If so, will he be married to both women in the after life? If so, can a woman do the same thing--have herself sealed for eternity to two different men and be married to both in the after life?In this one I honestly was not sure, and asked one of the sister missionaries at Mormon.org. She didn"t have the answer and I didn"t want to bother another missionary so I will suggest the below links and maybe you can gather something I couldn"t.https://www.lds.org...This is a scripture from D&C 132. This seems to suggest that yes, those marriages that were performed in accordance with the church at the time are eternal but that"s just my opinion, and this is referring to plural marriage before it was prohibited by the church. As for today.. I"ll ask some of my seminary teachers tomorrow and see what they think. I"ll get back to ya : )https://www.lds.org...This is just the link on plural marriage of earlier Mormons before it was prohibited.

7. Is it necessary to become flesh and blood human beings in order to progress in the after life? If so, how did the Holy Spirit become a god?Yes it is necessary. As for the second part I don"t believe there is church doctrine. But here is an excerpt from (http://en.fairmormon.org...) that has an interesting take on it thought I would like to say again that there is no official church doctrine on this so don"t take my word as gospel.Modern scriptures indicate that having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy (DC 93:33). It is assumed by some Latter-day Saints"but not known by revelation"that it will be necessary for the Holy Spirit to receive a body at some point, but the timeframe in which He does so is not particularly important. (To travel overseas to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)Jehovah, the premortal Jesus Christ, was part of the Godhead before his mortal birth. He was the God of Israel, and his yet-future atonement was efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was effective should blunt any feigned requirement for sequence concerning the Holy Ghost's receipt of a physical body, a matter about which the Church has no official doctrine.

8. Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three distinct gods, or are they one God? Or is only the Father God?https://www.lds.org...This explains that and you can search each member separately on the website for more detailed information on each

9. Are Yahweh and Elohim the same God or are they different gods?https://www.lds.org...We believe that Yahweh (or Jehovah) is another name for Jesus Christ.https://www.lds.org...We believe that Elohim is another name for Heavenly Father.So we do believe that these are separate gods.

10. Did God actually have physical sexual intercourse with Mary?http://www.fairmormon.org...This one holds a letter from Harold B. Lee (former prophet) and a some scriptural references. I would like to make a few notes of my own as well in saying that I do believe there is a reason she was called even after the event of Christ"s birth as the Virgin Mary by Nephi and Alma when they beheld her. Another thing is this scripture (https://www.lds.org...) When she says she "know not a man," where know is a euphemism for sexual relations, that seems to indicate that no she did not have sexual intercourse with God.One more scripture (https://www.lds.org...)8 "For my athoughts are not byour thoughts, neither are yourcways my dways, saith the LORD.9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my awaysbhigher than your ways, and my cthoughts than your thoughts.

11. Can people become goes through eternal progression?Yes, I explained this somewhat above so I will just give the web address again for the page.https://www.lds.org...12. Does God have a God above him?I agree with TrueScottsman to an extent but would like to emphasize that prophets are entitled to speculation and curiosity as much as the rest of us and I do not believe there is an official stance by the church.

13. What's the deal with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph Smith really translate that from an Egyptian papyri?https://www.lds.org...#Yes it appears so from these sources.https://www.lds.org...This is how translation occurred on a side note.

These are my answers and I tried to use as many church-backed sources as possible to keep it accurate. I wrote this in a hurry so forgive any grammar mistakes or the like. I hope this helps you! : )As for the other question about the book of Mormon. I will work on that next : )

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?

I will expand on a few of these questions a bit more as a former Mormon.

(snip)

almost the entirety of your responses are not LDS Church Doctrine nor representative of any officially published church teaching or position. Your responses call into question your claim of being a "former Mormon".

More ad hominem from you I see, questioning my honesty on the matter....

I was born and raised Mormon up until I was 19 years old and then studied it there which led me to leave. Baptized at 8 years old, became president of the Deacons and Teachers Quorum (if I remember right the Bishop is the head of the Priests Quorum so you can't be president of that). Was a part of Lacey 4th Ward of the Lacey Stake in Washington State. My family was very active growing up, my Father being a High Priest and my mother a Seminary Teacher (I myself went through 4 years of Seminary).

When I kept getting asked if I should go on a mission, I decided to study the claims Mormonism made before I went around telling people if it was true or not. I came to the conclusion that it was not.

Let's also notice that you failed to recognize that I even pointed out the areas where there seemed to be no official teaching on the matter. So I agree with your claim in a sense!

"No Mormon leaders have really spoken with any clarity as to this point.""It is not really specified where he came from in Mormon doctrine, or I may simply be ignorant to that.""Don't know if there is an official stance on that though.""You will find disagreement though, and beyond what these men wrote on the subject there is no official stance as older prophets can have their teachings superseded by current ones.""as what Joesph Smith taught on the matter doesn't appear to be official doctrine."

I was very honest about my response, and tried to give a more honest perspective rather than the "official church position," which usually tremendously under represents their actual beliefs by only truly establishing what is "milk," then later they will talk about the "meat."

Let's also notice how in your objection to my answers you have provided NO rebuttals, but rather an attack on my honesty.

I provided quotes from the founders of the LDS church, authorities who wrote on doctrine and direct evidence that contradicts what you said regarding the Book of Abraham.

This is something that I struggle with Mormons to do... talk on point please!!! Don't dodge!!!!

I thought you were honest and tried to back your claims by church sources very well for someone who hasn't been a member for 7 years if your age is right on your profile. I think we might have contradicted or had different interpretations on a few points but nobody knows everything there is to know about god, the universe etc. so speculation by everybody is to be expected.

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain

At 4/13/2014 9:33:10 PM, cevvlique wrote:I see a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I would like to correct them or answer any questions. Please be respectful and keep the posts on topic.

Okay, I have a question. I've read a good bit about the Mormon Church, including some of The Book Of Mormon. It is often described as the only religion to be disproved by science, since John Smith is supposed to have described metallic implements as being present in the Americas from ancient times onward, just as there were in Eurasia. But the peoples of America were all still living in their stone age even when it was discovered thousands of years later by Europeans. I've read of many inconsistencies like this. "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, but mainstream historians and archaeologists do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history." ~ Wiki. How do you explain this?

At 4/14/2014 12:04:31 AM, philochristos wrote:1. Do I have to be married to enter the Celestial kingdom?

I will expand on a few of these questions a bit more as a former Mormon.

(snip)

almost the entirety of your responses are not LDS Church Doctrine nor representative of any officially published church teaching or position. Your responses call into question your claim of being a "former Mormon".

More ad hominem from you I see, questioning my honesty on the matter....

I was born and raised Mormon up until I was 19 years old and then studied it there which led me to leave. Baptized at 8 years old, became president of the Deacons and Teachers Quorum (if I remember right the Bishop is the head of the Priests Quorum so you can't be president of that). Was a part of Lacey 4th Ward of the Lacey Stake in Washington State. My family was very active growing up, my Father being a High Priest and my mother a Seminary Teacher (I myself went through 4 years of Seminary).

When I kept getting asked if I should go on a mission, I decided to study the claims Mormonism made before I went around telling people if it was true or not. I came to the conclusion that it was not.

Let's also notice that you failed to recognize that I even pointed out the areas where there seemed to be no official teaching on the matter. So I agree with your claim in a sense!

"No Mormon leaders have really spoken with any clarity as to this point.""It is not really specified where he came from in Mormon doctrine, or I may simply be ignorant to that.""Don't know if there is an official stance on that though.""You will find disagreement though, and beyond what these men wrote on the subject there is no official stance as older prophets can have their teachings superseded by current ones.""as what Joesph Smith taught on the matter doesn't appear to be official doctrine."

I was very honest about my response, and tried to give a more honest perspective rather than the "official church position," which usually tremendously under represents their actual beliefs by only truly establishing what is "milk," then later they will talk about the "meat."

Let's also notice how in your objection to my answers you have provided NO rebuttals, but rather an attack on my honesty.

I provided quotes from the founders of the LDS church, authorities who wrote on doctrine and direct evidence that contradicts what you said regarding the Book of Abraham.

This is something that I struggle with Mormons to do... talk on point please!!! Don't dodge!!!!

I thought you were honest and tried to back your claims by church sources very well for someone who hasn't been a member for 7 years if your age is right on your profile. I think we might have contradicted or had different interpretations on a few points but nobody knows everything there is to know about god, the universe etc. so speculation by everybody is to be expected.

Thanks Cev, I appreciate that. I didn't go to lds.org, but tried to explain things in a way that an outsider might appreciate. Many of the questions I think we can agree upon simply have not had a consistently agreed upon answer within the LDS church.

And yes, my age is correct in my profile. :) My mother is currently a Seminary teacher (which I can see you are in right now), and she has been helpful after the fact in clearing up some of these details in our discussions.

I still believe Mormons to be some of the nicest and most decent people out there, and deeply cherish my family members and friends who remain in the church. I would say I am an ex-Mormon who doesn't hold a great deal of bitterness towards the organization, but I strive to understand it correctly, so if you have any corrections or if anyone else does I would be happy to know. :)

I appreciate the kind and courteous response from you as to what I posted, as I didn't mean to write it as an attack on Mormonism.

At 4/13/2014 9:33:10 PM, cevvlique wrote:I see a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I would like to correct them or answer any questions. Please be respectful and keep the posts on topic.

Okay, I have a question. I've read a good bit about the Mormon Church, including some of The Book Of Mormon. It is often described as the only religion to be disproved by science, since John Smith is supposed to have described metallic implements as being present in the Americas from ancient times onward, just as there were in Eurasia. But the peoples of America were all still living in their stone age even when it was discovered thousands of years later by Europeans. I've read of many inconsistencies like this. "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, but mainstream historians and archaeologists do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history." ~ Wiki. How do you explain this?

Ok, so I see that you are interested in the same area as the first poster on the top. I suggest you see my post to him, I'll probably be done in a half hour to an hour or so : )On a side note, make sure that you what you read isn't just prejudiced anti-mormon material written by people with a grudge. I've seen it and while they can be very persuading you should make sure they have fairly decent sources.Anyway read my post when it comes up, and keep in my mind I am not a prophet, seminary teacher, or general authority etc so don't treat my word as gospel lol :)And if anybody else who has posted has anything to add, I obviously welcome it!

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

The author of the OP solicited questions. I asked a simple question and clarified it for another poster. If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off.

I was agreeing with you, you freakin moron. What's wrong with you? Can't you read? I said you were "absolutely correct." One should expect some sort of evidence for their claims based upon peer-reviewed articles or studies.

Have you got some sort of a problem with ... ummm ... comprehension?

Subgenius said: "People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream."

You said: "Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists. You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

I said, "Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy."

You replied, "If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off."

Huh? You sound like an total idiot, a moron, a fool. Do you have some sort of problem with someone agreeing with you in requesting verifiable evidence?

I think he may have misunderstood. From an objective standpoint I can see where he might have thought that you were daring him to write a paper proving that his point was valid.

At 4/13/2014 9:33:10 PM, cevvlique wrote:I see a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I would like to correct them or answer any questions. Please be respectful and keep the posts on topic.

Okay, I have a question. I've read a good bit about the Mormon Church, including some of The Book Of Mormon. It is often described as the only religion to be disproved by science, since John Smith is supposed to have described metallic implements as being present in the Americas from ancient times onward, just as there were in Eurasia. But the peoples of America were all still living in their stone age even when it was discovered thousands of years later by Europeans. I've read of many inconsistencies like this. "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, but mainstream historians and archaeologists do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history." ~ Wiki. How do you explain this?

Ok, so I see that you are interested in the same area as the first poster on the top. I suggest you see my post to him, I'll probably be done in a half hour to an hour or so : )On a side note, make sure that you what you read isn't just prejudiced anti-mormon material written by people with a grudge. I've seen it and while they can be very persuading you should make sure they have fairly decent sources.Anyway read my post when it comes up, and keep in my mind I am not a prophet, seminary teacher, or general authority etc so don't treat my word as gospel lol :)And if anybody else who has posted has anything to add, I obviously welcome it!

I'll read your explanation when you post it. I'm very curious to see an alternative view. I am pretty careful about searching for multiple valid sources before I adopt an opinion, and I hope you are the same.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

The author of the OP solicited questions. I asked a simple question and clarified it for another poster. If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off.

I was agreeing with you, you freakin moron. What's wrong with you? Can't you read? I said you were "absolutely correct." One should expect some sort of evidence for their claims based upon peer-reviewed articles or studies.

Have you got some sort of a problem with ... ummm ... comprehension?

Subgenius said: "People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream."

You said: "Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists. You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

I said, "Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy."

You replied, "If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off."

Huh? You sound like an total idiot, a moron, a fool. Do you have some sort of problem with someone agreeing with you in requesting verifiable evidence?

I think he may have misunderstood. From an objective standpoint I can see where he might have thought that you were daring him to write a paper proving that his point was valid.

It would take quite an imagination to see much of a dare in there. He will probably say that he was confused by the 2nd person pronoun.

At 4/13/2014 10:14:55 PM, Keltron wrote:Can you present some evidence from mainstream scholarship that corroborates the version of ancient American history presented in the Book of Mormon? Links will suffice, I'll do the legwork.

Thanks

please, for the sake of clarity - and as a point of reference - define what you mean by "mainstream scholarship". People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream.Otherwise, you are not actually doing any legwork at all.

Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists.

You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available.

"Peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy.

The author of the OP solicited questions. I asked a simple question and clarified it for another poster. If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off.

I was agreeing with you, you freakin moron. What's wrong with you? Can't you read? I said you were "absolutely correct." One should expect some sort of evidence for their claims based upon peer-reviewed articles or studies.

Have you got some sort of a problem with ... ummm ... comprehension?

Subgenius said: "People who narrow such "qualifications" are usually just promoting their presupposition and prejudices up front. "Mainstream" does not make something more true or more false than something not-mainstream."

You said: "Credible sources outside the church. Historians or archaeologists. You are mistaken. The consensus position of mainstream, peer reviewed scientists is the most credible information available."

I said, "Absolutely correct. Write your paper, and have a group of your peers review it for accuracy."

You replied, "If you would like to answer my question go ahead. Otherwise piss off."

Huh? You sound like an total idiot, a moron, a fool. Do you have some sort of problem with someone agreeing with you in requesting verifiable evidence?

I think he may have misunderstood. From an objective standpoint I can see where he might have thought that you were daring him to write a paper proving that his point was valid.

It would take quite an imagination to see much of a dare in there. He will probably say that he was confused by the 2nd person pronoun.

At 4/13/2014 9:33:10 PM, cevvlique wrote:I see a lot of people have misconceptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and I would like to correct them or answer any questions. Please be respectful and keep the posts on topic.

Okay, I have a question. I've read a good bit about the Mormon Church, including some of The Book Of Mormon. It is often described as the only religion to be disproved by science, since John Smith is supposed to have described metallic implements as being present in the Americas from ancient times onward, just as there were in Eurasia. But the peoples of America were all still living in their stone age even when it was discovered thousands of years later by Europeans. I've read of many inconsistencies like this. "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas, but mainstream historians and archaeologists do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history." ~ Wiki. How do you explain this?

Ok, so I see that you are interested in the same area as the first poster on the top. I suggest you see my post to him, I'll probably be done in a half hour to an hour or so : )On a side note, make sure that you what you read isn't just prejudiced anti-mormon material written by people with a grudge. I've seen it and while they can be very persuading you should make sure they have fairly decent sources.Anyway read my post when it comes up, and keep in my mind I am not a prophet, seminary teacher, or general authority etc so don't treat my word as gospel lol :)And if anybody else who has posted has anything to add, I obviously welcome it!

I'll read your explanation when you post it. I'm very curious to see an alternative view. I am pretty careful about searching for multiple valid sources before I adopt an opinion, and I hope you are the same.

I just started a 63 minute video, so this might take longer than I thought lol

"The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read."
R13; Mark Twain
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
R13; Mark Twain